Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I think we have clearance on a noncontroversial resolution that is going to pass yet this evening, and I rise for about 5 minutes to speak on this issue. Last week I submitted a resolution to commemorate the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, which takes place each October. I thank Senators Leahy, Ayotte, and Klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors of this measure. I have met with many domestic violence victims over the years. We have come a long way since the enactment in 1984, with my support, of the landmark Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. In the decades since then, Congress has committed billions of dollars to implement that statute, as well as the Violence Against Women Act, and we have seen a decline in the rate of serious partner violence over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Research Service. But researchers and advocates who work with domestic violence survivors remind us that there is still much work to be done to stop this terrible crime and support survivors in their efforts to heal. It is estimated that as many as 9 million Americans are physically abused by a partner every year. According to a 2011 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 22 percent of women and about 14 percent of men have experienced severe physical abuse by a partner in their lifetime. Experts tell us that domestic violence affects women, men, and children of every age and socioeconomic class, but we also know that women still experience more domestic violence than do men, and women are significantly more likely to be injured in an assault by a partner or a spouse. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, women between the ages of 18 and 31 experience the highest rates of domestic violence. Most have been victimized by the same offender on at least one prior occasion. And, of course, it is heartbreaking to realize that millions of American children have been exposed to domestic violence, either by experiencing some form of abuse or witnessing a family member's abuse. The good news is that each and every day, in communities across the Nation, there are victim advocates, service providers, crisis hotline staff and volunteers, as well as first responders who are working tirelessly to extend compassionate service to the survivors of domestic violence. I wish to take this opportunity to single out some of these folks and extend a special thank-you on behalf of the Senate. First, I highlight the hard work of trained volunteers and staff who operate crisis hotlines across the country. They are a varied and talented group of individuals who, often at low or no pay, make confidential support, information, and referrals available to victims, as well as their friends and families, each and every day. We appreciate their efforts to help countless men, women, and children escape abusive situations. Next, I recognize the contributions of the talented staff at the 56 State and territorial domestic violence coalitions around the country and the globe. These individuals also help respond to the needs of battered men, women, and children, typically by offering their expertise and technical support to local domestic violence programs in each and every State and territory. In my home State, for example, the Iowa State Coalition Against Domestic Violence has, since way back in 1985, connected local service providers to vitally important training and other resources that exist to support Iowa survivors. We cannot commemorate Domestic Violence Awareness Month without also mentioning the police officers who are on the front lines in the effort to protect crime victims and to prevent abuse in the first place. Domestic violence calls can present lethal risks for officers, and we mourn those who have lost their lives while responding to such domestic violence incidents. We know, too, that in recent decades the law enforcement approach to these instances has changed to reflect the latest research, and we applaud those police agencies that continue to update and improve their domestic violence policies. I also recognize those who operate the Nation's domestic violence shelters that meet the emergency housing needs of thousands of adults and children each day or millions of Americans each year. Last but not least, I want to highlight the hard work of the staff at charities and agencies across the Nation that are devoted to helping domestic violence survivors achieve financial independence, obtain legal assistance, and most importantly overcome the detrimental emotional and physical effects of abuse. As I close, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important resolution. With its adoption, we demonstrate the Senate supports the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the history of Andrei Sakharov Plaza. A lot of people wonder whether this makes much of a difference, what the Senator is attempting to do in the case of the Chinese Embassy. I can tell you it made a big difference. All you have to do is measure the opposition as we were considering the one I introduced several years ago. When the State Department fights hard not to embarrass the Russians, when the city of Washington, DC, fights very hard not to rename a street, then you know you are on the right track, when you have those sorts of people in opposition to you.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the bill before the Senate, S. 754, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, and I want to thank the bill's managers for their leadership in drafting this bill and putting a lot of hard work into the bill. Cyber security challenges that threaten us are very real challenges. We receive almost daily reminders of the importance of effective cyber security to protect our private data and the safety and security of the entire Nation from cyber attacks. These attacks have compromised the personal information of so many Americans as well as sensitive national security information. That national security issue might even be the biggest of the ones we hope to deal with. The legislation before us will encourage the government and the private sector to work together to address these cyber security challenges. This bill helps create a strong legal framework for information sharing that will help us respond to these threats. The bill authorizes private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat information with each other and with the government. In turn, the bill permits the government to share this type of information with private entities. The bill reduces the uncertainty and, most importantly, the legal barriers that either limit or prohibit the sharing of cyber threat information today. At the same time, the bill includes very significant privacy protections to strike a balance between maintaining security and protecting our civil liberties. For example, it restricts the government from acquiring or using cyber threat information except for limited cyber security purposes. So, as I did at the beginning, I want to salute the leadership of the chair and vice chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein, for their efforts on this bill. I know from the last couple of Congresses that this type of legislation isn't easy to put together. In the 112th Congress, I cosponsored cyber security legislation along with several of my colleagues. This involved working across several committees of jurisdiction. Last Congress, as then- ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I continued to work with the Select Committee on Intelligence and others on an earlier version of this bill. Unfortunately, Democratic leadership never gave the Senate an opportunity to debate and to vote on that bill in the last Congress. Senators Burr and Feinstein were undaunted, however, and this Congress they diligently worked and continued to seek input from relevant committees of jurisdiction, including the Judiciary Committee that I chair. They incorporated the views of a broad range of Senators and worked to address the concerns of stakeholders outside of the Congress. This has produced their managers' amendment. This is a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. As with most pieces of legislation that come before the Senate, it is not a perfect piece of legislation from any individual Senator's point of view, but in finding common ground, it has turned out to be a good bill that addresses a very real problem. It is time for us to do our job and to vote. This is how the Senate is supposed to work. Now is the time for action because the question isn't whether there will be another cyber attack, the question is when that attack will happen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to be voting on a very important bill. We will have the opportunity to vote to proceed to a bill that deals with sanctuary cities and immigration policies that are a serious threat to the public safety. We will move to take up the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act--a bill that should put an end to sanctuary jurisdictions, give law enforcement important tools they need to detain criminals, and increase penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders of our immigration laws. Some of these sanctuary policies are created when a local government unit, such as a city or county executive body, passes an ordinance prohibiting their officers from communicating with Federal immigration and law enforcement officials. Now, there is another way: Some sanctuary policies come about simply because local law enforcement initiates its own policies of providing safe harbor for undocumented immigrants. And then another way: Some sanctuary policies develop because law enforcement officers are afraid they will be sued if they enforce immigration laws and detain an individual for their unlawful immigration status. In summation, these policies and practices have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to be released back into the community, and the effects have been disastrous. I am going to speak about those effects. America saw these policies play out in July when Kate Steinle was innocently killed while walking along a San Francisco pier with her father. The murderer, who was illegally in the country and actually deported five times prior to that day, was released into the community by a sanctuary jurisdiction that did not honor the detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The suspect in Kate's death admitted he was in San Francisco because of its sanctuary policies. That sums up the problem our bill addresses. Here is Kate--no longer with us--as one example. I have several other examples because people tried to tell us you should not change policy based upon one murder. Maybe so, maybe not, but 5 years of statistics shows about 121 people killed by people that have been deported for criminal activities in this country and then come back in. I want to tell you what our bill does about that, but I want to first tell you about some examples. In July, our Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing called ``Oversight of the Administration's Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims.'' That is the committee's hearing title. This hearing was an opportunity to hear the voices of Americans who have been impacted by these very indefensible policies while also conducting oversight of the administration's policies and tolerance toward sanctuary jurisdictions. Jim Steinle, Kate's father, expressed his family's desire to see legislation enacted to take undocumented felons off our streets. The committee was very moved by his presence and testimony--obviously something that wasn't very easy for him. He talked about how Kate ``had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room.'' He told us how she died in his arms that day, despite her plea in her dying words of ``Help me, Dad.'' The suspect in Kate Steinle's murder had seven prior felony convictions and had been deported five times. Yet he was shielded--protected, in other words--by San Francisco's sanctuary policy. The Kate Steinle story is not a singular case. Too many Americans have lost their lives, and too many families have had to feel the real and devastating impact caused by sanctuary cities and lax enforcement policies. Our committee heard powerful testimony from families other than Kate Steinle's father. We heard from Mrs. Susan Oliver. She is the widow of Deputy Danny Oliver. This is the family. He was a police officer in Sacramento, CA. Danny was killed while on duty by an illegal immigrant who was previously arrested on two separate occasions for drug-related charges and twice deported. Mrs. Oliver spoke of the daily loss she experiences without her husband in everything from raising her children to the milestones he will miss, including their daughter's upcoming wedding. We also heard from Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant Ronnebeck. You are seeing Grant's picture here. Grant was a 21-year-old convenience store clerk who was gunned down earlier this year by an undocumented immigrant. The Obama administration released Grant's alleged murderer, who was in removal proceedings. Grant was born in my State of Iowa but resided in Arizona. He had two brothers and a sister. Mr. Ronnebeck expressed his family's desire to see Grant's legacy be a force for change, imploring us as lawmakers to ``rise above political differences, to set aside personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, with the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in mind.'' Think of that tomorrow and think of the Ronnebeck family losing their son. They are asking us to keep the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in our minds. We also heard from Brian McCann. Mr. McCann's brother, Dennis McCann, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County, IL, sanctuary city policies. Mr. McCann expressed his anger at the sanctuary city policies of Cook County, which allowed his brother's killer to be free, and at a system that failed to communicate with him and his family when the suspect was released by the locals. We also heard from Laura Wilkerson of Pearland, TX, the mother of Josh Wilkerson. Josh was 18 years old when he was murdered by his high school classmate, an undocumented immigrant, after Josh offered him a ride home from school. Josh's murderer was sentenced to life in prison and will be eligible for parole in 30 years. Mrs. Wilkerson spoke of the gentle soul of her son, the brutal torture that he endured, and actually watching an unapologetic 19-year-old brag about his killing skills during trial and talking about how things were done in his country. These stories are heartbreaking, but nothing has changed. I want to talk about what has happened since Kate's murder. We have seen more fall victim to sanctuary jurisdiction policies. Shortly after Kate's death, Marilyn Pharis was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered in her home in Santa Maria, CA, by an undocumented immigrant who was released from custody because the county sheriff does not honor Federal enforcement detainers. A 2-year-old girl was brutally beaten by an undocumented immigrant in San Luis Obispo County, CA. He was released from local custody despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer and an extensive criminal history, and he is still at large. Margaret Kostelnik was killed by an undocumented immigrant who allegedly attempted to rape a 14-year-old girl and shoot a woman in a nearby park. He was released because Immigration and Customs Enforcement refused to issue a detainer and take custody of that suspect. These are a very few of the stories that could be told on this Senate floor. There are many more families who are hurting today because of lax immigration policies and the lack of willingness by President Obama's administration to do something about sanctuary cities. But don't take it from just me. Even the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledges that sanctuary cities are ``counterproductive to public safety.'' He said these policies were ``unacceptable.'' Yet this administration has not taken demonstrable action to address the unwillingness of sanctuary jurisdictions to work with Federal immigration authorities. More than 12,000 Federal detainer requests were ignored by State and local jurisdictions in 2014. Moreover, in June of this year, the administration rolled out a new program that reduces the enforcement priorities and announced it would not seek the custody of many criminals who are in the country illegally. This is called the Priority Enforcement Program, PEP for short. That program actually gives sanctuary jurisdictions permission to continue ignoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. PEP even discourages compliant jurisdictions from further cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement because it now only issues detainers for individuals who are already convicted of certain crimes deemed priorities by the Department of Homeland Security. Many local jurisdictions want to work with the Federal Government and protect their communities but are frustrated when the administration refuses to work with them. Think of Arizona trying to protect its own citizens from the crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in that State. The State legislature passes laws. The administration goes to court and gets those laws declared contrary to the Constitution or our only immigration laws. Why? Because under the Constitution, one of the 18 powers of Congress happens to be the enforcement or the writing of the immigration laws so they are uniform. So when this administration will not enforce immigration laws in Arizona, and Arizona decides under the Tenth Amendment, under the police powers of the State, to do it for the Federal Government, then it is wrong for that State to do it. But this administration will not take action against the sanctuary cities that are violating the same immigration laws. I want to continue with some examples where the administration refuses to work with local officials. Sheriff Cummings in Cape Cod, MA, recently explained his frustration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an immigrant who had overstayed his visa was arrested for battery with a dangerous weapon and child pornography. Sheriff Cummings said that when he learned that this individual who had a long criminal history was in the country illegally, he asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a Federal immigration detainer ``so that if someone came up with a bail we could then turn him over to ICE and we wouldn't release him back into the community.'' So then what happened? ICE-- Immigration and Customs Enforcement--never issued the detainer. Sheriff Cummings noted that before PEP, immigration authorities would issue a detainer pretty quickly but not anymore. He commented: It just shows how they've relaxed their policy so there are more criminal illegal aliens in our communities right now. Those are the ones I'm concerned with. I'm concerned with the individuals that have committed crimes. They are here illegally to begin with and they've committed crimes while they're here. To me it makes no sense to allow these people to stay in our communities. I very much agree. It makes no sense that people who do not belong here and commit crimes are allowed to return to our communities and cause further harm. Getting back to the bill we will be voting on tomorrow, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect America Act addresses the problem of sanctuary jurisdictions in a very commonsense and balanced way. There seems to be consensus that sanctuary jurisdictions should be held accountable, and we do that with the power of the purse. And now I am beginning to explain our bill. This bill limits the availability of certain Federal grants to cities and States that have sanctuary policies. We limit funding through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This is a grant program run by the Department of Justice that is designed to reimburse part of the cost incurred by local jurisdictions that detain undocumented criminal aliens. Sanctuary cities receive these funds despite their refusal to detain suspects who are wanted by immigration authorities. In this year alone, California received a total of $44 million in these State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds even though the State has a sanctuary law. New York City, a sanctuary city, received $11.6 million in taxpayer funding. To fund sanctuary cities with State Criminal Alien Assistance Program money essentially subsidizes these jurisdictions for their lack of cooperation. As Former Assistant Secretary Morton stated in a letter to Cook County, a well-known sanctuary city, ``It is fundamentally inconsistent for Cook County to request federal reimbursement for the cost of detaining aliens who commit or are charged with crimes while at the same time thwarting ICE's efforts to remove those very same aliens from the United States.'' The bill that will be before us tomorrow morning when we vote responds to this hypocrisy by making sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Another grant program limited to sanctuary jurisdictions is the community-oriented policing services or, as it is known around this town and locally, the COPS Program. These grant dollars help fund community-oriented policing programs for local law enforcement agencies. Our bill makes sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for these taxpayer dollars if they have a policy or practice in place despite the lack of any statute, ordinance, or policy directive from their unit of local government. Finally, the bill limits taxpayer dollars through the community development block grant for sanctuary jurisdictions when a county, city, or State has in effect a statute that clearly defies information sharing as required by Federal law or has a statute that prohibits any government official from complying with a detainer request issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Those are the funding parts of our bill. In acknowledgement of the bill's fairness in targeting certain grants, the National Sheriffs' Association writes: The grant penalties you would impose also acknowledge that our public safety entities should not be punished for the actions of a state or local subdivision over which they may not have control. I appreciate the careful consideration you clearly gave that issue. The second part of the bill deals with lawsuits that local law enforcement people might be faced with, so the second thing our bill does is provide protection for law enforcement officers who do want to cooperate and comply with detainer requests from the Federal Government. It would address the liability issue created by recent court decisions by providing liability protection to local law enforcement who honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association explains in a letter of support for the bill: Unfortunately, at least four courts have ruled that local law enforcement officers may be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment if they comply with an immigration detainer, even if the detainer was lawfully issued and the detention would have been legal if carried out by DHS. This means that our local counterparts are exposed to potential civil liability and it disables their ability to detain dangerous criminals scheduled for release. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act solves this problem by explicitly stating that local law enforcement officers have legal authority to comply with immigration detainers. While preventing restrictive liability to law enforcement, the bill also ensures the protection of civil liberties and the rights of individuals. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association noted that ``the bill protects civil liberties, ensuring that someone who has had their constitutional rights violated may sue.'' Finally, the bill addresses criminals attempting to reenter the United States and habitual offenders of our immigration laws. The bill creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for any alien who is an aggravated felon or has been twice convicted of illegal reentry. Thanks to many people, including TV's Bill O'Reilly, for keeping this issue constantly before the people of this country. This part of the bill-- named by Bill O'Reilly and commonly referred to as Kate's law--has become so important to many Americans. You can only imagine how important it is to the families of those who were killed by these murderers, the people whose pictures I had up here. This bill is very important to those families. Kate's Law is necessary in order to take those who are dangerous to our communities and have no respect for our law off our streets. This bill has broad support from law enforcement groups. It also has the support of groups who want enforcement of our immigration laws. It has the support of the Remembrance Project, a group devoted to honoring and remembering Americans who have been killed by undocumented immigrants. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Some on the other side of the aisle are criticizing us for politicizing these recent attacks by criminal aliens and releases by sanctuary jurisdictions. We are being accused of attacking immigrants. However, I just want to note that the Democrats take no shame in politicizing the recent gun violence and promoting legislation that would not have stopped some of the shootings, from Newtown, CT, to Roseburg, OR. This is not a partisan issue. This bill protects law-abiding people and improves our public safety. Had it been enacted before July 1, individuals like Kate Steinle might still be with us. I would think we should all be able to agree that people who are in the country illegally and committing crimes should not be released back into the community. There has to be accountability and a commitment to uphold the rule of law. For too long we sat by while sanctuary jurisdictions released dangerous criminals into the community to harm our citizens. It is finally time that we put an end to it, and tomorrow we will have that opportunity. It is time we work toward protecting our communities rather than continue to put them in danger. I hope all of my colleagues will support this bill and vote to proceed to it tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is an immigration program that is out of control and not conforming to the reason the program was put into effect in the first place. It needs to be reformed or it needs to be eliminated. So I come to the floor to talk about this immigration program known as the EB-5 regional center investment program and the serious concerns I have about continuing this program without reforms. The program was just extended in the continuing resolution to keep the government funded, but I want to talk about changes that need to be made before and if it is extended again. The EB-5 program was created in 1990. A foreign national under this program can invest $1 million in a new commercial enterprise that creates 10 full-time jobs, and then, in turn, that person receives lawful permanent residence and then, if they want to, citizenship. The required investment amount is only $500,000 if the investment is made in what is called a targeted employment area, defined to be a rural area or an area with high unemployment. The EB-5 program allows investors to pool their investments for a project, and they can meet the job-creation requirements by providing evidence of not direct jobs but evidence of indirect jobs. In previous speeches on the floor, I have talked about the national security and integrity issues associated with the program. I have detailed the risks, and I have expressed concern about the lack of oversight by the administration. Today, I will focus on one particular abuse of the program and how this program does not fulfill the intent of the law passed in 1990. Perhaps the greatest violation of congressional intent that has evolved over the years is the manner in which so much of the investment money coming into targeted employment areas has been directed toward lavish--and I mean lavish--building projects in well-to-do urban areas, not in the areas of high unemployment and not in rural areas, as the 1990 law implied. Four-star hotels and commercial office buildings are being built with foreign investment dollars in very affluent urban neighborhoods rather than the high-unemployment and rural areas which Congress intended to benefit. This has been done by gerrymandering the boundaries of the targeted employment areas to include at one end the affluent census tract in which the building project is located and at the other end, perhaps many miles away, a census tract with high unemployment. In other words, the word ``gerrymandering'' is the word that is used in forming some congressional districts that are very strangely arranged so somebody can be reelected to office. The same approach is being used here to form a targeted employment area to get all of this money into urban areas that are very affluent. One of the most notorious examples of this gerrymandering, to push the boundaries, is the Hudson Yards project, a group of luxury apartment buildings and office towers in Midtown Manhattan--in midtown Manhattan, meaning New York. Even the Wall Street Journal, which never met a business project it did not like, reported on how this program has been abused. The Wall Street Journal explained how the Hudson Yards project qualifies for the lower investment threshold despite the affluent Midtown location of the project because the boundaries of the targeted employment area were manipulated--or let me say gerrymandered--to include a public housing project in Upper Manhattan. Another project that flies in the face of congressional intent-- meaning the intent of the 1990 law--is located in Lower Manhattan near Wall Street. As the New York Times reported, the Battery Maritime Building has been classified as being located in a targeted employment area based on a gerrymandered area that ``snakes up through the Lower East Side, skirting the wealthy enclaves of Battery Park City and TriBeCa, and then jumps across the East River to annex the Farragut Houses project in Brooklyn.'' In other words, the developers did everything they could to include the Farragut Houses project, which is a public housing community, to come in at the lower investment level. The New York Times went on to say that ``the small census tract that contains the Farragut Houses has become a go-to-area for developers seeking to use the visa program: its unemployed residents have been counted towards three projects already.'' That is the New York Times. Watchdog.org, a national watchdog group that has followed abuses of the program closely over many years, has also identified another problematic, gerrymandered targeted employment area. They reported that a 21-story residential building project, which included trendy restaurants and shops, was built with foreign investments despite its location in an upscale neighborhood with only 0.8 percent unemployment. These are just a few examples, yet they point to a clear problem with this program. When it was created by Congress, we set two different investment levels and clearly tried to steer foreign capital to high-unemployment and rural areas. Obviously, I am showing you that has not been fulfilled by the way this program has finally evolved. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 80 percent of program money is going to projects that wouldn't qualify as being in targeted employment areas without ``some form of gerrymandering.'' Meanwhile, the article adds, people wanting to raise money for projects in rural areas and low-income parts of cities say they find it increasingly hard to compete. Even the Washington Post has become fed up with the way in which the intent of Congress has been violated. In a September 6 editorial, after discussing the program's numerous economic and integrity failings and suggesting that the program lapse, the Post writes: ``The EB-5 program is supposed to favor distressed economic areas, but the definition of a needy zone has been stretched to include nearly the whole country, including hot downtown real estate markets.'' I wish to end by saying, again, that the program is in need of reform. In June, Senator Leahy and I introduced S. 1501, a bill that would substantially reform the program by improving program oversight, addressing national security vulnerabilities and restoring the program to its original intent. I hope my colleagues will look at this very bipartisan bill and will take an opportunity to understand how this program is being used and abused and review the proposal that Senator Leahy and I have put out there. Mr. President, I refer my colleagues to the Wall Street Journal article ``U.S. Visa For Cash Plan Funds Luxury Towers--Program to spur jobs in poor areas supports projects in well-off neighborhoods,'' dated September 10, 2015, by Eliot Brown; the Watchdog.org article ``Upscale Dallas project cashes in on EB-5 visa program,'' dated September 24, 2015, by Kenric Ward; an article from the Washington Post ``It's time for the corporate visa giveaway to go away,'' dated September 6, 2015; and the New York Times article ``Rules Stretched as Green Cards Go to Investors,'' dated December 18, 2011, by Patrick McGeehan. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on an extraordinary about-face that we have seen from many of my colleagues across the aisle with respect to the filibuster. When I say ``across the aisle,'' I mean an about-face on the part of Democrats who see the filibuster differently now than they did over the last 4 or 5 years. But now, like Paul on the road to Damascus, they have seen the light and have now embraced the filibuster wholeheartedly, and like many converts, they are very active in their faith. Naturally, this has caused frustration for many Americans who wonder why we cannot address the pressing issues we were elected to address, and there are a lot of frustrated Members of the Senate as well. I am one of those frustrated Members. When we have an opportunity for the Senate to function as James Madison said it should function, I don't understand why we cannot have it function that way. Not surprisingly, the recent series of filibusters on legislation of enormous consequences for our Nation has resulted in new calls for changes to the Senate rules. First, I would like to take stock of where we are right now. It was just last year that the previous majority leader was abusing the cloture motion to shut down debate and amendments on virtually every single bill, even before the debate had begun, all while blocking any amendments. Any Senator who routinely votes for cloture motions under those circumstances is obviously abdicating his or her responsibility to the people who elected that Senator to offer and debate any number of different ideas. That is what the Senate is all about. Nevertheless, when those of us who were then in the minority voted against abdicating our responsibilities as Senators, we had a parade of Democratic Senators come to the floor and accuse us of that most dastardly deed, at least according to them, the filibuster. They repeatedly claimed that strict rule by the majority faction was the principle by which the Senate ought to operate with little or no input from the minority party; in other words, have it operate just like the House of Representatives. We now have a majority--a Republican majority--that has tried to restore the Senate to function as a deliberative body, as it used to and as it was intended to by the Framers of the Constitution. For instance, last year the previous majority leader didn't bring a single, individual appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate for consideration and vote. By putting off appropriations until the end of the fiscal year, that leader calculated that the threat of being blamed for a government shutdown would force Republicans to accept a massive omnibus bill containing policies that would otherwise be rejected. This year things are different. The Senate appropriators have done their work and reported out each separate appropriations bill--can you imagine, all 12 of those appropriations bills--and most of them on a bipartisan basis. Then, when the majority leader has attempted to bring them to the floor, Senator McConnell, the majority leader, has been met with a Democratic filibuster of the motion even to proceed to the bill. What is the justification of that on the part of today's minority? The majority leader Senator McConnell is not blocking amendments. In fact, he is even inviting amendments. So if there is something that the minority wishes to change or add to a bill, they can do it simply by participating in the process and offering amendments. After all, isn't that what the Senate is all about? We have to pass appropriations bills or the government will shut down, so why can't we even bring appropriations bills up for consideration? Well, the answer is quite obvious: The Democratic leadership is up to those old games they used to keep the Senate from debating appropriations bills that they did over the last 5 years. By blocking appropriations bills and threatening to blame us for the shutdown, they hope and believe they can bully us into busting open the spending caps that a majority in both the House and Senate agreed to in the budget resolution earlier this year. So much, then, for majority rule, which the Democrats claim was such a deeply held principle, as they expressed it only last year and years before that. They justify filibustering the appropriations bills because President Obama has threatened to veto them unless he gets more spending. That doesn't make any sense. The first appropriations bill they filibustered was the Defense appropriations bill--not because that bill didn't provide enough funding but because they want to hold it hostage to extract additional spending in other areas. Now they are holding hostage the bill that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. So they are holding hostage funding for our men and women in combat and our veterans who have served our Nation in order to protect the President from having to follow through on his threat to veto these bills. I understand that the President might not want to have to defend vetoing funding for our troops and veterans as a bargaining chip to extract additional spending from the Congress, but protecting the President from having to follow through with his threat is not a very good reason for a filibuster. A similar thing happened with the filibuster of legislation to disprove the Iran deal. A bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate was in favor of legislation to block President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Because the deal was set to go into effect unless Congress acted, the Democrats cannot claim their filibuster was needed for additional deliberation. It was a blatant attempt to run out the clock so the President would not have to use his veto pen. So clearly it is not as though Democrats have now grudgingly accepted the utility of the filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances; they have now embraced it so completely that they used it simply to prevent embarrassing the President. In light of this, it is understandable that many in my political party and even in the grassroots are questioning whether we ought to get rid of the filibuster on legislation. This is an expression of the frustration by a lot of conservatives that I hear from in the grassroots of Iowa, and they hear it in the other body as well. The argument goes kind of like this: After all, the Democrats unilaterally abolished the filibuster on nominations, contrary to Senate rules. Well, they will have to live with that come 2017 when the Republican President is inaugurated, as I hope. But just as I think they will live to regret that move, I think those of us on my side of the aisle would ultimately regret the loss of the Senate as a deliberative body if we were to change the cloture rule for legislation. What would the Democrats do with unchecked power? We don't have to guess. The Democrats briefly had the 60 votes needed to overcome any filibuster, and they promptly ran the unpopular health care law down the throats of an unwilling American public. They dismissed legitimate criticism from Republicans and skepticism from citizens of America. They promised that Americans would like it once it had passed and when we found out what is in it. Well, Americans now know what is in the health care law, and the law hasn't become any more popular. So does that mean we have to just accept that ObamaCare and other aspects of ``the fundamental transformation of America'' the President promised are here to stay? Of course not. But we must not be shortsighted. I think a lot of the people who are conservatives, such as the grassroots of America, who are frustrated, as a lot of us in this body are frustrated, would be shortsighted if they consider changing how the Senate operates. Keep in mind that the American left was greatly influenced by the progressive movement in the early 20th century which held that history is continually progressing toward a future of more governmental control over people's lives--for the people's benefit, of course. Now, most of us don't buy that--those who hold to the principle of limited government--but there are a lot of people today who are buying it. We hear it in the Presidential campaigns, particularly of the other political party. This led the progressives of the early 20th century to reject the Declaration of Independence and focus on individual liberty and to oppose our Constitution's system of checks and balances designed to protect that liberty because it made it harder for the government to act. That comes from the philosophy that government always knows best. It also means that those on the left played the long game, sometimes biding their time, sometimes accepting incremental progress toward their goals, and other times making radical changes when they see an opening. Those of us who are animated by the principle of individual liberty recognize that liberty is the exception in human history, and threats to liberty must be fought constantly or we risk losing liberty and freedom. As such, we are impatient to correct every loss of liberty right away, as we should be. However, in doing so, we must be very careful not to break down those very safeguards that are in place to prevent government encroachment on individual liberty. If we are not careful, then short-term gains could lead to even greater loss of liberty in the future. The President's former Chief of Staff was famous for saying something like this, and hopefully I am quoting him accurately: ``You never let a serious crisis go to waste, and what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.'' In other words, we have seen a concerted effort to take advantage of momentary passions and temporary majorities to enact longstanding policy goals of more governmental intervention in the economy and intervention in the lives of Americans. Preventing such a power play is precisely the role the Senate was designed to play. Just listen to this passage from Federalist No. 62: ``The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.'' Of course, that was written by James Madison, who is rightly called the father of the Constitution. Madison prepared extensively for the Constitutional Convention by studying ancient republics and ancient and contemporary political philosophers. He came to the convention with what was called the Virginia plan, which the convention used as a starting point for what became the U.S. Constitution. Madison also took extensive notes throughout the Constitutional Convention. In other words, I think that when he speaks about the intent behind the structure of the U.S. Constitution, he ought to know better than anybody, and that is particularly as he writes about the function of the Senate in our Constitution system. It is true that Madison did not speak to the filibuster itself, and the Constitution leaves the rules of the House and Senate up to each Chamber, but you cannot read the Federalist papers without a clear understanding that our system of government was intended to allow only measures that have broad and enduring support to actually get into law. The Constitution was not designed to allow whatever faction happens to be in power to have a free hand to do whatever it wishes. As Madison said in Federalist No. 10, ``Measures are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.'' Where that minority is protected is in the U.S. Senate--the only place in our political system. In fact, in arguing for the necessity of the Senate in Federalist Paper No. 63, Madison is quite critical of pure majoritarian democracies in ancient times and attributes their failure to the lack of something we call the U.S. Senate. That said, I understand why some of my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives are frustrated with the fact that many of the things they pass become stalled here in the Senate. I say to them that a lot of us on this side of the aisle share that frustration. So I and we need to make sure those obstructing are held accountable. But anyone who would change the Senate rules to give the majority leader the power to ram any bill through the Senate on a party-line vote should then ask whether they can trust that this power will be used fairly by future majority leaders. Remember that the previous majority leader tried to shut the minority out of the legislative process at almost every stage. The Senate was routinely presented with bills often written behind closed doors in the majority leader's office and told that there would be only an up-or-down vote with no amendments. Moreover, what would conservatives gain by abolishing the filibuster? I want people to think about what might happen if the filibuster is abolished. In the short term, we would have the emotional satisfaction of seeing President Obama use his veto pen, but that is about it. In the long run, you can bet that modern-day progressives will use those tools to impose all sorts of policies to expand the scope of government that would otherwise not make it through our constitutional system. If you want to know what some of those ``intemperate and pernicious resolutions'' that Madison warned us about might be, we need only look to the past. I will list a whole bunch of things that could be the law of the land today. Had the Senate operated on a purely majoritarian basis in the past, our country would be in much worse shape than it is now. For instance, if you think ObamaCare is bad, we would have had a single-payer, totally government-run health care system if it weren't for the 60-vote requirement. We would have had the disastrous cap-and-trade bill in 2008 with its crony giveaways, making special interests rich while destroying jobs for hard-working Americans. The list of items that would have passed the Senate goes on and on--the 2007 immigration amnesty bill; the DISCLOSE Act to intimidate private groups who engage in political speech that was brought up in 2010; the abolition of secret ballot elections for unions in 2007; the prohibition on businesses replacing striking employees that was brought up in 1992; a bill to encourage public safety employees to unionize in 2010; the 1992 Clinton crime bill; drug price negotiations in Medicare Part D that amount to Federal price controls in 2007; an amendment to the Constitution to cancel First Amendment protections for speech around election time in 2014; stripping religious liberty protections from Christian business owners who object to paying for drugs that can cause an abortion in 2014; President Obama's second big-spending stimulus proposal in 2011; the so-called Buffett tax would have been passed several times by now; the tax increase to pay local government employee salaries in 2011; and who knows how many other tax increases they would have passed if they knew they could get away with it. Of course, we heard a few weeks ago a speech by Senator Alexander, who has argued that one of the first things the Democratic leadership would do is follow the orders of union bosses and outlaw the many right-to-work laws we have in the United States, forcing associations against the will of some people. This Senator knows well what it is like in the majority and what it is like being in the minority in the Senate, and I know things look very different from each perspective. I would ask my conservative colleagues who are frustrated that the current majority is not able to work its will to consider the example of history and look to the future. It is also interesting to observe the behavior of the many Democrats who had never experienced a minority before who have now gained a new perspective on the filibuster and the power of the minority and the protection of the minority by supporting the filibuster every chance they get--and it didn't take long. On the third vote in the Senate this year--after the change of control, that is--most of the Democrats, including the loudest critics of the filibuster, voted against cloture on a motion to proceed, which until that point they claimed to be an egregious and inappropriate abuse of Senate rules. I know there are some Senate Democrats who still say they are opposed to the filibuster even in principle, although apparently not in practice. It is no good saying ``Stop me before I filibuster again.'' If you think it is wrong, don't do it. It is as simple as that. When Senator Wyden and I began to work on ending the practice of secret holds, we pledged to disclose any hold that we placed on a bill in the Congressional Record, and we did that for years before finally getting the rules changed so that every Member had to do that. The Senate Democrats have shown through their actions that they now fully support the Senate filibuster. I guarantee that the next time Republicans are in the minority, we, too, will see the necessity of this traditional protection against what Madison referred to as ``the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with a broad bipartisan group of colleagues, a truly landmark piece of legislation. It is the result of months of hard work and thoughtful deliberations. It is the largest criminal justice reform bill in a generation. This bill represents a consensus among my colleagues and me. There are elements of the criminal justice system that we agree can and should be improved. We all agree that statutory mandatory minimum sentences can serve an important role in protecting public safety and bringing justice to crime victims, and this bill will preserve the primary mandatory minimums to keep some certainty and uniformity in Federal sentences and to encourage criminals to cooperate with law enforcement. We even add two new mandatory minimums for crimes involving interstate domestic violence and supplying weapons or other defense materials to prohibited countries or terrorists, but our current system has produced some specific instances of severe and excessive sentences. So we all agree that we need to lower some of the harshest enhanced mandatory minimums, and we all agree that we can do a better job of targeting those enhanced mandatory sentences to the most serious violent and repeat offenders. This bill does just that. It even expands some of those enhanced mandatory minimums to criminals with prior violent felonies and State crimes involving the unlawful use of firearms. That will be a big help in cities across the country who face rising homicide rates from violent offenders who have been released from prison. We also all agree that our current system could benefit from giving judges a bit more discretion in sentencing. That is why we are expanding the current safety valve. We also create a second safety valve so that nonviolent offenders who have minor criminal histories or play low-level roles in drug organizations are not improperly swept up by mandatory minimums. Finally, we all agree that we must improve our prisons and stop the revolving door. Those of us introducing the bill have agreed to give lower-risk inmates a chance to return to society earlier and with better prospects to become productive, law-abiding citizens. There are other parts of this bill that are also important, but I will not go into them at this time. As I said, this is the biggest criminal justice reform in a generation. Instead, I wish to end with the idea that this bill is about the Senate. Senators from both sides of the aisle and Senators with very different perspectives have come together to solve an important problem facing the United States. This is how the U.S. Senate can work, should work, and I am pleased to be a part of it and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to my colleagues who joined me in this effort: Senators Durbin, Cornyn, Whitehouse, Lee, Graham, Schumer, Booker, and Scott, and my friend Ranking Member Leahy. I close by again thanking the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for the great help that he has been, not only as my friend, but also for his work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted this Congress for David Palmer and Zach Terwilliger, detailees from the Department of Justice.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with a broad bipartisan group of colleagues, a truly landmark piece of legislation. It is the result of months of hard work and thoughtful deliberations. It is the largest criminal justice reform bill in a generation. This bill represents a consensus among my colleagues and me. There are elements of the criminal justice system that we agree can and should be improved. We all agree that statutory mandatory minimum sentences can serve an important role in protecting public safety and bringing justice to crime victims, and this bill will preserve the primary mandatory minimums to keep some certainty and uniformity in Federal sentences and to encourage criminals to cooperate with law enforcement. We even add two new mandatory minimums for crimes involving interstate domestic violence and supplying weapons or other defense materials to prohibited countries or terrorists, but our current system has produced some specific instances of severe and excessive sentences. So we all agree that we need to lower some of the harshest enhanced mandatory minimums, and we all agree that we can do a better job of targeting those enhanced mandatory sentences to the most serious violent and repeat offenders. This bill does just that. It even expands some of those enhanced mandatory minimums to criminals with prior violent felonies and State crimes involving the unlawful use of firearms. That will be a big help in cities across the country who face rising homicide rates from violent offenders who have been released from prison. We also all agree that our current system could benefit from giving judges a bit more discretion in sentencing. That is why we are expanding the current safety valve. We also create a second safety valve so that nonviolent offenders who have minor criminal histories or play low-level roles in drug organizations are not improperly swept up by mandatory minimums. Finally, we all agree that we must improve our prisons and stop the revolving door. Those of us introducing the bill have agreed to give lower-risk inmates a chance to return to society earlier and with better prospects to become productive, law-abiding citizens. There are other parts of this bill that are also important, but I will not go into them at this time. As I said, this is the biggest criminal justice reform in a generation. Instead, I wish to end with the idea that this bill is about the Senate. Senators from both sides of the aisle and Senators with very different perspectives have come together to solve an important problem facing the United States. This is how the U.S. Senate can work, should work, and I am pleased to be a part of it and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to my colleagues who joined me in this effort: Senators Durbin, Cornyn, Whitehouse, Lee, Graham, Schumer, Booker, and Scott, and my friend Ranking Member Leahy. I close by again thanking the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for the great help that he has been, not only as my friend, but also for his work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't know how many times I have come to the floor in the last several years or maybe in the last several days to talk about energy. In the process of talking energy, I always say I am for ``all of the above,'' as a lot of my colleagues do; meaning all forms of energy, which would be petroleum, natural gas, alternative energies, including biofuels and wind, conservation as a third one, and nuclear energy as a fourth one. I still believe that. Although I believe some of my colleagues who say they are for ``all of the above'' are for everything that is underground but not much above the ground. So I think there is an inconsistency there. With that background, I want to talk about something that is going to happen tomorrow morning. The Senate banking committee is scheduled to mark up legislation called the American Crude Oil Export Equality Act. I don't have any fault with that action tomorrow. This bill would repeal the four-decade ban on the export of domestically produced crude oil. This ban was put in place in response to the Arab oil embargo, which created an energy crisis and led to fears of crude oil shortages. That goes back to the 1970s. The recent technologies of horizontal drilling and fracking of oil shale has resulted in enormous increases in domestic crude oil production and reduced oil and gas prices. This has led to the domestic oil industry's insistence on repealing the export ban. I am all for fair and free trade. I recognize that Iowa manufacturers and farmers benefit from the export markets. One of every five tractors produced by John Deere is exported. Much of Iowa's agricultural abundance, both commodities and livestock, is exported. I understand, then, the economic benefit and economic impact that vibrant export markets can have on the domestic economy, creating good-paying jobs, and on productivity. What bothers me is not that Big Oil is on the cusp of achieving their highest priority in getting Congress to pass a bill to repeal the export ban, what bothers me is that Big Oil is pushing Congress to repeal the ban, while at the very same time continuing to attack and undermine domestic renewable fuels. Iowa does not produce any crude oil or natural gas, but Iowa farmers lead the Nation in the production of homegrown, renewable, clean ethanol and biodiesel. Congress created the renewable fuel standard to guarantee that consumers have a choice to buy clean renewable fuel. Big Oil has fought tirelessly to repeal and undermine the renewable fuel standard law because they are afraid of competition. If Big Oil wants to get the export ban lifted, I would suggest they end their selfish pursuit of the repeal of the renewable fuel standard. Big Oil should be satisfied with achieving their highest priority, a repeal of the export ban, and drop then their crusade against clean- burning biofuels. It is time for Big Oil to stop acting like pigs at the trough. It is time for Big Oil to lay off the renewable fuel standard. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Brian James Egan, of Maryland, to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State. I will object because the Department of State has failed to fully respond to almost a dozen outstanding letters dating back to 2013. In addition, on August 20, 2015, my staff met with Department officials in an effort to prioritize material for production. The Department has failed to comply with its commitments, producing material late, failing to provide all requested material, and even failing to provide material to the Senate Judiciary Committee contemporaneously with providing the same documents to Freedom of Information Act requestors. This past August, I warned the Department that if it failed to change its ways that I would be forced to escalate the scope of my intent to object to unanimous consent requests for Department nominees. Since then, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman has joined me in requesting witness interviews of Department employees. Despite the Department's commitment to make witnesses available and assist in the identification of additional relevant witnesses, none of these interviews have actually been scheduled. The Department needs to respond in good faith to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Thus far, it has primarily been promises with little or no followthrough. The Department's good faith will be measured in documents delivered and witnesses provided. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Egan in any way. However, the Department must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. No.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote on whether to proceed to H.R. 36, I want to respond to a couple of arguments made by a Democratic Senator yesterday. First, that Democratic Senator quoted Hal Lawrence of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for the proposition that a 20-week fetus is not viable. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the group Dr. Lawrence represents, has long opposed this legislation. According to the Senator I am confronting on this issue, Dr. Lawrence said the following on May 13, 2015: In no way, shape or form is a 20-week fetus viable. There is no evidence anywhere of a 20-week fetus surviving, even with intensive medical care. But as explained by the Washington Post Fact Checker of May 26 of this year, Dr. Lawrence's statement is simply incorrect when applied to H.R. 36. The bill uses a method of calculating fetal age that is based on the day that fertilization actually occurred. The legislation would protect the unborn beginning at 20 weeks after fertilization, which is the same as 22 weeks of pregnancy, also known as 22-week gestational age. Gestational age is a measure of calculating the unborn baby's age that relies on the date of the mother's last normal menstrual period. It is well established that babies can survive at 22-week gestational age. As noted in the Washington Post, for example: ``That babies can survive at 22 weeks gestational age has been known for 15 years.'' Perhaps Dr. Lawrence was confused about what H.R. 36 would accomplish. The Washington Post Fact Checker article sets the record straight. Second, the Senator I am referring to said earlier that abortions past 20-week fetal age are extraordinarily rare. Some jurisdictions with the most lax abortion policies don't even collect data on the stage of pregnancy when an abortion is performed, while other jurisdictions may have reporting requirements but are not really enforcing those reporting requirements. Because data on late-term abortions is not widely available, it is hard to know what hard evidence really exists to support the claim. We do know that several hundred doctors, and well over 200 facilities across the United States, offer abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article I earlier referred to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Pope's visit this week to our Nation's Capital reminds us all of how very important it is to show compassion and concern for the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Unborn children who fall into this category are entitled to the same dignity all human beings share. This is true even when their presence might be uncomfortable or create difficulties, the Pope reminds us. We are now considering moving to a bill known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation would make no change to our abortion policy in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. At 20 weeks of fetal age, when the unborn child can detect and respond to painful stimuli, the bill would impose some restrictions on elective late-term abortions. Such a change to existing law would put us in line with the vast majority of other countries around the globe. I want to emphasize that the United States is in the small minority of countries around the world that allow abortion on demand after the fifth month of pregnancy. As some of my colleagues have mentioned earlier, we are just one of seven countries that take this unusual position. China, North Korea, and Vietnam are among the other seven. Are these countries really the ones we in the United States want to align ourselves with on this particular human rights issue? Many of us in this Chamber actively supported the Americans with Disability Act. Could anyone here support an abortion after 5 months because the unborn baby had a cleft lip? What about a late-term abortion of a baby with hemophilia? Under current law, it is quite possible to destroy unborn babies with these or other more serious abnormalities in utero. I believe these babies' lives have the same value as those of other unborn babies without disabilities. There are some who say they cannot support this legislation. I say to them, if you do not support restrictions on abortion after the fifth month of pregnancy, when some babies born prematurely at this stage now are surviving long-term, then what exactly is your limit on abortion? Scientists say the unborn child can feel pain perhaps even as early as 8 weeks and most certainly by 20 weeks' fetal age. The American people overwhelmingly support restrictions on late-term abortions. Doctors tell us that about a quarter of the babies born prematurely, around 5 months, will survive long term if given proper medical assistance. Dr. Colleen Malloy, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern's School of Medicine, testified before a congressional panel just 3 years ago that infants born at 20 weeks' fetal age now are ``kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.'' She explained that treatment of neonatal pain is standard in such cases and added that there is no reason to believe an infant born prematurely would feel pain any differently from the same infant if still in the womb. We also have the statements from Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing gynecologist with decades of experience. Dr. Levatino estimates that he performed over 1,000 abortions in private practice, until his adopted daughter died in a car crash. The death of his child was a life- changing event that ultimately led him to stop performing abortions. Dr. Levatino testified before the House Judiciary Committee--again, 3 years ago--that performing an abortion on a 24-week-old child is painful for that unborn baby. In the words of Dr. Levatino, ``If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on an unborn child, please think again.'' Scientific studies confirm what Dr. Levatino has noted--that the unborn can experience pain after the fifth month. In fact, at least one medical school professor says it is indisputable that unborn babies can react to painful stimuli as early as 8 weeks after conception. Dr. Maureen Condic, a neurobiology professor who earned her Ph.D. at Berkeley, explains that the unborn child at this stage of development reacts to painful stimuli just as other human beings do at later stages. In both the case of the unborn child and human beings at later stages of development, the response is the same: to actively withdraw from the painful stimulus. As stated in a paper written by Dr. Condic: The scientific evidence that the human fetus can detect and react to painful stimuli as early as 8 weeks . . . is indisputable. The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by eight weeks. . . . Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus, the region of the brain that is largely responsible for pain perception in both the fetus and the adult, begin to form around 12 weeks, and are completed by 18 weeks. Babies delivered prematurely also show pain-related behaviors, according to Dr. Condic. Also, the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to pain is, she reports. It is perhaps for this reason that many doctors use anesthesia when operating on late-term babies in utero. Research suggests that these babies do better and recover faster when anesthesia is used during utero surgery. Many expectant mothers today are encouraged to talk to their babies in utero or play soft music for the babies' benefit. Unborn babies can hear as early as the fifth month and find their mom's voice soothing, new research suggests. Babies even learn while in the womb, absorbing language earlier than previously suspected, according to another report. Regardless of whether you characterize yourself as pro-choice or pro-life, common sense tells us that if such techniques work to soothe the unformed baby, then the reverse likely is true as well. Late in pregnancy, unborn babies aren't impervious to dismemberment with steel tools in utero. Some say abortion saves and helps women. Remember that 5 years ago a woman walked into a Pennsylvania abortion clinic expecting that she would have her pregnancy terminated and would walk out of that clinic without major side effects. She was 41 years old and 19 weeks pregnant. She had three children and was a grandmother. She and her daughter entered the clinic, but she never made it out alive. Her name was Karnamaya Mongar. She was one of the many victims of Kermit Gosnell. He operated a clinic in West Philadelphia for four decades. He made a living by performing abortions that no other doctor should ever do. The grand jury report that framed the case around Kermit Gosnell stated: ``Gosnell's approach was simple: keep volume high, expenses low--and break the law. That was his competitive edge.'' According to the grand jury report: The bigger the baby, the bigger the charge. Ultrasounds were forged so that the Government would never know how old aborted babies truly were. Babies were born alive, killed after breathing on their own, by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. These were live, breathing, squirming babies. This doctor didn't care about the well-being of these aborted babies. He didn't care about the health of the women. Extremely experienced doctors like Dr. Levatino, whom I mentioned earlier, also tell us that abortion is ``seldom if ever a useful intervention'' when life-threatening conditions require immediate care late in pregnancy. In most of these late second and third trimester cases, any attempt to perform an abortion ``would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care.'' The number of babies whose lives Dr. Levatino had to terminate in such cases was zero, he testified. The bill we are talking about that we are going to vote on tomorrow is a commonsense measure aimed at protecting women and children across the country. I urge my colleagues to embrace the sanctity of human life and vote to move to this bill so it can at least be considered. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, student debt is a big and growing concern for millions of American graduates. As we look at ways of addressing this problem, it is important to keep in mind that about 90 percent of that debt is owed to the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently holds more than $1 trillion of student loan debt. That makes the U.S. Department of Education one of the country's largest lenders. As such, any solution to the debt problem needs to examine the Federal Government's lending practices. Federal banking regulations require commercial lenders to confirm a borrower's ability to repay the loan. Federal student loans are given without a credit check or any analysis of the student's ability to repay the loan in the future. This is intentional, since many prospective college students have no credit and little or no income, but it also puts all the burden on student borrowers to make sure they don't borrow more than they need. As a Nation, we have accepted that it makes moral and financial sense to assist low-income Americans in accessing higher education opportunities, and we do that to the tune of billions of dollars through Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and other student aid programs. However, while need-based Federal student aid is vital to help students who could not otherwise afford to attend college, students are able to borrow well in excess of their financial need and potentially in excess of what they will be able to repay. So something needs to be done about this. College financial aid officers are required under law to issue Federal loans up to the full amount for which the student is eligible even if a financial aid administrator knows a student is borrowing more than the student needs and will likely have trouble repaying. Think about that. Even if the financial aid administrator knows the student plans to put the funds toward an engagement ring or sports car, Federal rules say they must issue the loan. If a bank followed the same rules as the Federal Government follows for student aid, it would be accused of predatory lending. There have been lots of suggestions about how to address the student debt issue, but if you don't tackle the root of the problem, it is like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. A good place to start is looking at how our current Federal student lending practices may be helping to fuel the student debt problem. For example, about 60 percent of the students at the University of Iowa graduate with debt, and their average debt is about $25,000. However, the university estimates that of that $25,000 figure, about $13,000--or 60 percent of the debt--is debt that was incurred to pay for tuition, room and board, and books, and the remainder is for what can be called lifestyle expenses. In other words, about 40 percent of the average student debt taken out by the University of Iowa student goes toward lifestyle- enhancing extras. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will be looking at a number of reforms to the student loan program as it drafts legislation to reauthorize and reform the Higher Education Act. I know that our esteemed Chairman Alexander has in the past proposed giving higher education institutions additional tools to reduce unnecessary student borrowing. I have worked with Senator Franken of Minnesota on some measures to provide more information about college costs when students are selecting a college in the very first place, which will hopefully encourage more price competition to combat rising tuition. There is room for a lot of innovation in higher education. I don't pretend to have all the answers and solutions to the problem of college cost and student debt, but I am proposing some very simple, very commonsense first steps to empower students with the information they need to make sound financial decisions. The Higher Education Act already contains a requirement for colleges to provide counseling to new borrowers of Federal student loans. However, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to encourage students to understand the scope and impact of the debt they will face when they graduate. I am here on the floor to introduce legislation I have entitled the Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act. This bill strengthens the current student loan counseling requirement by making the counseling an annual requirement before new loans are disbursed rather than just for first-time borrowers. My bill then adds several key components to the information institutions of higher education are required to share with students as part of that loan counseling. Under my bill, colleges would have to provide an estimate of the student's projected loan debt-to- income ratio at the time of their graduation. This would be based on the starting wages for that student's program of study and the estimated total student loan debt the student will likely take out to complete the program. That way, students will have a real picture of the student loan payment they will face and whether they will be able to afford those payments with their likely future income from whatever program they majored in. We often hear that statistics show that on average a college degree results in higher earnings over a lifetime. However, not all college degrees have the same earning potential, and many students will be in for a very rude awakening when they graduate and find that what they are able to earn with their degree does not match the level of their debt. Students deserve to have this information when they are deciding how much to borrow, not after they graduate with unmanageable debt. This legislation I am proposing will also ensure that students are counseled to borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses and informed that they do not have to accept the full amount of the loan offered. Students will also be given options for reducing borrowing through scholarships, reduced expenses, work study, or other work opportunities. Also, not graduating on time can significantly increase student loan debt, so students will be counseled on the impact of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness and how they can stay on track to graduate on time. Crucially, the bill also requires that a student manually enter either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount of the Federal direct loan funding the student desires to borrow. The current process almost makes borrowing the maximum the default option. If you want to borrow less than is offered, you have to ask for less. Because the amount of Federal student loans a student is eligible to borrow is not limited by the calculation of the financial need or ability to repay, it is important that the student make a conscious, informed decision about how much to borrow rather than simply accepting the total amount of the Federal student loan which the law allows them to borrow. Many schools already make a concerted effort to counsel students against over-borrowing, and such efforts are showing signs of success right in my home State of Iowa. My alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, created a program 5 years ago with the theme ``Live Like a Student.'' The program includes workshops and courses designed to educate students on the importance of living within their means while they are in school so they need not live like a student later in life. As a result, the university has lowered average student debt from more than $26,000 to $23,163. Grand View University, also in my State, has a financial empowerment plan where students and families construct a comprehensive 4-year financing plan. Under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's future earning potential in the student's field of study. The 4-year plan also helps ensure students graduate on time, and tuition increases are kept at 2 percent a year over those 4 years. Iowa Student Loan, my State-based nonprofit lender, also has a program called the Student Loan Game Plan, which is an online interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income ratio. It walks students through how their borrowing will affect their lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce their borrowing. As a result, in the past year 18.2 percent of the students who participated decreased the amount they planned to borrow by an average of $3,680, saving students $2.1 million in additional loan debt. My legislation would also require that students receive regular statements about their loan while they are in school, just as they will when they graduate and start repaying. With just about any other kind of loan you can think of, borrowers start receiving statements right away and are expected to make payments. With Federal student loans, payments are not required until a period of time after graduation and no statements are sent out until that time, so students forget about the amount of debt they are accruing until they graduate and get their first bill. What is more, many Federal student loans still accrue interest while the student is in school, which will be added to the total loan when they start repaying. That means that not only do students forget how much debt they have while in school, making them less conscientious about living like a student, but their loan may actually be growing while they are in school. Students have the option to pay that interest while they are in school so that it isn't capitalized into their loan. However, few students take advantage of this option. The regular statement my bill calls for would encourage this practice so students get used to paying some amount toward their loans even before they graduate. This will also make students more aware of their borrowing and less likely to overborrow each time they take out a new loan. A college education generally remains a good investment. However, when students' academic dreams become a nightmare upon graduation because they borrowed more from the Federal Government than they can afford to repay with the degree they earned, they understandably feel something is very wrong. The Federal Government, as the lender making these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know what they are getting themselves into before they get in over their heads. My legislation is intended to deal with that issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to prevent more students from drowning in Federal student loan debt, and I will introduce that bill at this particular time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, student debt is a big and growing concern for millions of American graduates. As we look at ways of addressing this problem, it is important to keep in mind that about 90 percent of that debt is owed to the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently holds more than $1 trillion of student loan debt. That makes the U.S. Department of Education one of the country's largest lenders. As such, any solution to the debt problem needs to examine the Federal Government's lending practices. Federal banking regulations require commercial lenders to confirm a borrower's ability to repay the loan. Federal student loans are given without a credit check or any analysis of the student's ability to repay the loan in the future. This is intentional, since many prospective college students have no credit and little or no income, but it also puts all the burden on student borrowers to make sure they don't borrow more than they need. As a Nation, we have accepted that it makes moral and financial sense to assist low-income Americans in accessing higher education opportunities, and we do that to the tune of billions of dollars through Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and other student aid programs. However, while need-based Federal student aid is vital to help students who could not otherwise afford to attend college, students are able to borrow well in excess of their financial need and potentially in excess of what they will be able to repay. So something needs to be done about this. College financial aid officers are required under law to issue Federal loans up to the full amount for which the student is eligible even if a financial aid administrator knows a student is borrowing more than the student needs and will likely have trouble repaying. Think about that. Even if the financial aid administrator knows the student plans to put the funds toward an engagement ring or sports car, Federal rules say they must issue the loan. If a bank followed the same rules as the Federal Government follows for student aid, it would be accused of predatory lending. There have been lots of suggestions about how to address the student debt issue, but if you don't tackle the root of the problem, it is like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. A good place to start is looking at how our current Federal student lending practices may be helping to fuel the student debt problem. For example, about 60 percent of the students at the University of Iowa graduate with debt, and their average debt is about $25,000. However, the university estimates that of that $25,000 figure, about $13,000--or 60 percent of the debt--is debt that was incurred to pay for tuition, room and board, and books, and the remainder is for what can be called lifestyle expenses. In other words, about 40 percent of the average student debt taken out by the University of Iowa student goes toward lifestyle- enhancing extras. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will be looking at a number of reforms to the student loan program as it drafts legislation to reauthorize and reform the Higher Education Act. I know that our esteemed Chairman Alexander has in the past proposed giving higher education institutions additional tools to reduce unnecessary student borrowing. I have worked with Senator Franken of Minnesota on some measures to provide more information about college costs when students are selecting a college in the very first place, which will hopefully encourage more price competition to combat rising tuition. There is room for a lot of innovation in higher education. I don't pretend to have all the answers and solutions to the problem of college cost and student debt, but I am proposing some very simple, very commonsense first steps to empower students with the information they need to make sound financial decisions. The Higher Education Act already contains a requirement for colleges to provide counseling to new borrowers of Federal student loans. However, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to encourage students to understand the scope and impact of the debt they will face when they graduate. I am here on the floor to introduce legislation I have entitled the Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act. This bill strengthens the current student loan counseling requirement by making the counseling an annual requirement before new loans are disbursed rather than just for first-time borrowers. My bill then adds several key components to the information institutions of higher education are required to share with students as part of that loan counseling. Under my bill, colleges would have to provide an estimate of the student's projected loan debt-to- income ratio at the time of their graduation. This would be based on the starting wages for that student's program of study and the estimated total student loan debt the student will likely take out to complete the program. That way, students will have a real picture of the student loan payment they will face and whether they will be able to afford those payments with their likely future income from whatever program they majored in. We often hear that statistics show that on average a college degree results in higher earnings over a lifetime. However, not all college degrees have the same earning potential, and many students will be in for a very rude awakening when they graduate and find that what they are able to earn with their degree does not match the level of their debt. Students deserve to have this information when they are deciding how much to borrow, not after they graduate with unmanageable debt. This legislation I am proposing will also ensure that students are counseled to borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses and informed that they do not have to accept the full amount of the loan offered. Students will also be given options for reducing borrowing through scholarships, reduced expenses, work study, or other work opportunities. Also, not graduating on time can significantly increase student loan debt, so students will be counseled on the impact of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness and how they can stay on track to graduate on time. Crucially, the bill also requires that a student manually enter either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount of the Federal direct loan funding the student desires to borrow. The current process almost makes borrowing the maximum the default option. If you want to borrow less than is offered, you have to ask for less. Because the amount of Federal student loans a student is eligible to borrow is not limited by the calculation of the financial need or ability to repay, it is important that the student make a conscious, informed decision about how much to borrow rather than simply accepting the total amount of the Federal student loan which the law allows them to borrow. Many schools already make a concerted effort to counsel students against over-borrowing, and such efforts are showing signs of success right in my home State of Iowa. My alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, created a program 5 years ago with the theme ``Live Like a Student.'' The program includes workshops and courses designed to educate students on the importance of living within their means while they are in school so they need not live like a student later in life. As a result, the university has lowered average student debt from more than $26,000 to $23,163. Grand View University, also in my State, has a financial empowerment plan where students and families construct a comprehensive 4-year financing plan. Under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's future earning potential in the student's field of study. The 4-year plan also helps ensure students graduate on time, and tuition increases are kept at 2 percent a year over those 4 years. Iowa Student Loan, my State-based nonprofit lender, also has a program called the Student Loan Game Plan, which is an online interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income ratio. It walks students through how their borrowing will affect their lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce their borrowing. As a result, in the past year 18.2 percent of the students who participated decreased the amount they planned to borrow by an average of $3,680, saving students $2.1 million in additional loan debt. My legislation would also require that students receive regular statements about their loan while they are in school, just as they will when they graduate and start repaying. With just about any other kind of loan you can think of, borrowers start receiving statements right away and are expected to make payments. With Federal student loans, payments are not required until a period of time after graduation and no statements are sent out until that time, so students forget about the amount of debt they are accruing until they graduate and get their first bill. What is more, many Federal student loans still accrue interest while the student is in school, which will be added to the total loan when they start repaying. That means that not only do students forget how much debt they have while in school, making them less conscientious about living like a student, but their loan may actually be growing while they are in school. Students have the option to pay that interest while they are in school so that it isn't capitalized into their loan. However, few students take advantage of this option. The regular statement my bill calls for would encourage this practice so students get used to paying some amount toward their loans even before they graduate. This will also make students more aware of their borrowing and less likely to overborrow each time they take out a new loan. A college education generally remains a good investment. However, when students' academic dreams become a nightmare upon graduation because they borrowed more from the Federal Government than they can afford to repay with the degree they earned, they understandably feel something is very wrong. The Federal Government, as the lender making these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know what they are getting themselves into before they get in over their heads. My legislation is intended to deal with that issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to prevent more students from drowning in Federal student loan debt, and I will introduce that bill at this particular time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this is a critically important debate on a nuclear deal that is going to have long-lasting impacts on our national security and the security of our friends and our allies. This debate is happening because 98 Senators expressed the desire to have a say on this agreement. This process will allow the American people to speak through their elected representatives, and I can say the American people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement. New public opinion polls released in just the last few days indicate that Americans in general are opposed to this deal by a margin of 2 to 1. Only 21 percent support it. I participated in meetings with constituents in 25 of Iowa's 99 counties during the August work period. The message I received was overwhelmingly in opposition to this agreement. That is the same message I am hearing from Iowans who have written or called since the deal was announced in July. After many weeks of studying the terms of the Iranian deal, also hearing from experts and attending classified briefings, and engaging in dialogue with my constituents, my initial skepticism has been confirmed. I have come to the conclusion this agreement presented to us is a bad deal that will not increase our national security or the security of our friends and allies and should be rejected. The United States began the negotiations from a position of very real strength. The international sanctions were obviously hurting Iran, and Iran wanted out from under those sanctions. The sanctions regime that Congress put in place over the objections of President Obama drove Iran to the negotiating table. The administration, leading up to the negotiations and throughout the entire process, outlined the conditions for a good deal. President Obama and Secretary Kerry both made important statements about the goals of the negotiations. The goal was, of course, to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Secretary Kerry himself said in the fall of 2013 that Iran has ``no right to enrich,'' and that a good deal with Iran would ``help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.'' Despite all these assurances that negotiations would include ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections, the deal falls real short. President Obama negotiated away from these positions over the course of these negotiations. This agreement accepts and legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state. Iran will not dismantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past U.S. policies that Iran not be allowed to enrich. Iran also is permitted to continue a vast research and development program. Many of the significant limitations expire after 10 short years, leaving Iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program. Iran could fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state, contrary to what we were promised by this administration and the initial goals that were announced by the President. Now, with respect to inspections, international inspectors will not have anytime, anywhere access. They will have what is termed ``managed access.'' In fact, the deal provides Iran with a 24-day process to further delay--we know what will happen--and hide prohibited activities. Iran has a track record of cheating, otherwise I couldn't say those things. They have cheated on past agreements. This deal allows Iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days. The agreement also includes side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that we can't review. Even the administration has not seen them. And people in this country expect us to read before we vote. Of course, we can read the agreement, but we can't read side agreements that the law requires be given to the Congress to read under this special law. So we are going to be voting on things which we haven't seen and which the law says we should see. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate 98 to 1, requires the administration to provide to Congress access to all ``annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing material, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements'' as part of our agreement with the President. It seems in this case we are being asked to put our faith in the Iranian regime to not cheat, contrary to what we know about them. Iran has not provided details on the past military dimensions of its nuclear program even though the U.S. position was, very simply, that Iran had to come clean about that history before any sanctions relief. It is critical, for a robust verification regime to work, that the International Atomic Energy Agency have a full accounting of Iran's past efforts and stockpiles. Yet it appears that Iran will be allowed to supervise itself by conducting its own inspections and collect samples from its secretive military facility in Parchin, where much of the military dimensions of its nuclear program had been carried out. I also oppose the last-minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles. GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that ``we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' They didn't listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So under this agreement, after just 5 years the conventional arms embargo will be lifted. After just 8 years the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted. Iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be a direct threat to the United States and our allies. And Iran's past arms trafficking to the Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations has long threatened the State of Israel and other Middle Eastern allies as well, and it of course threatens stability--very much so--in the region. Once Iran has complied with the initial restraints on its nuclear program, many sanctions will be lifted. This will release somewhere around $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets. The lifting of sanctions and release of these funds will only exacerbate Iran's support for terror and tradition of terror, with Iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets to bolster its conventional military and further support global terrorism. Even Obama administration officials have said that Iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten Americans and Israelis. Now, isn't that something--this administration negotiating an agreement where it is assumed that we are going to give them further resources to support efforts to kill Americans and Western Europeans. The concept of ``snapping back'' these sanctions is another issue that has been discussed. These sanctions also appear less effective on the issue of snapping back than originally claimed. The complicated process to reimpose sanctions is unlikely to work even if Iran fails to comply with the agreement. Iran views snapback sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement, so any effort to reimpose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as to whether or not to dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions. I support a robust diplomatic effort that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, but I also strongly disagree with proponents of this agreement who argue that the only alternative to this deal is war. That, of course, is a false choice and intellectually dishonest. Iran came to the negotiation table because it desperately sought sanctions relief. If this deal were rejected, we could impose even tougher sanctions, allowing our diplomats to negotiate a better deal that would more adequately safeguard our Nation's security interests and that of our allies. A better deal would not legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanctions relief for limited temporary constraints, and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race. If we reject this deal, we could push for an international agreement that would truly dismantle Iran's nuclear program and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. A better deal would not ignore Iran's past bad behavior. Iran has for many years been the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has an egregious record of human rights violations and the persecution of religious minorities. It continues to imprison U.S. citizens. At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants. This agreement will free up tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets without addressing any of these issues. We know Iran will use some of that money to support terrorist activities throughout the Middle East, and those are extended into the United States and Western Europe. Iran provides support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and provides weapons, funding, and support to Hamas and Hezbollah. This deal appears to be the result of desperation on our side for a deal--any deal--and the Iranians knew that and took advantage of our weakness.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will put the remainder in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This deal is a result of President Obama's philosophy of leading from behind. As a result of this philosophy, we now have enemies who don't fear us and friends and allies who don't follow us because they question our credibility and they question our leadership. We have a more dangerous world because of it. President Obama himself said that it is better to have no deal than a bad deal. This deal has far too many shortcomings and will fail to make America and our allies safer. It will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while providing a windfall that will allow them to ramp up their bad behavior. Obviously I oppose this deal, and I hope we can send a signal to the administration and Iran that we need a deal that improves our national security and the security of our friends and allies in the region and responds to the common sense of the American people who, through the polls, have shown they know this to be a bad deal. I yield the floor.